Introduction

There have been repeated efforts by the Muslim community to disassociate themselves
from the terrorist acts of militant Islamic fundamentalism and its "jihad".
Suspicion of Muslims in general remains -- and has already been much increased
by 7/7. Victimization and scapegoating are challenging communities. Who
benefits from this?

Publicly unacceptable racist prejudices are readily disguised as totally acceptable
prejudices against Islamic terrorists. Curiously however, Christians make little
effort to dissociate themselves from the militant branch of Christianity intimately
involved in what it prefers to label as a "crusade" against Islam
-- a view shared by its preferred president in the USA. The degree of involvement
of radical Christianity in perpetrating the war against Islam should not be
forgotten. This was exemplified by the much-puiblicized declaration to an evangelical
church in 2003 of the US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence,
General Boykin, regarding the satanic nature of Islam [more
| more
| more],
without making it clear that he was speaking in a private capacity. Boykin's
actions were subsequently defended by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld
[more].

With respect to 7/7, as an illustration of typically premature media closure
and jumping the gun, Mohamed El-Menshawy (Washington
Report, Center for Defense Information) was asked on CNN World News
(9 July 2005) why Muslims around the world did not immediately go into the street
to demonstrate against, and dissociate themselves from, those who had seemingly
"hijacked their religion" on the occasion of 7/7. The same question
might well be asked of those Christians who are faced with an effort by fundamentalist
Christians, who have seemingly hijacked Christianity, seeking to frame Islam
as satanic in pursuit of their evangelical agenda.

Muslim death cults

Mohamed El-Menshawy was also asked on CNN when Muslims would recognize that
they had a "death cult" in their midst and act against that -- a question
raised by Thomas L Friedman (If
It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution, New York Times,
8 July 2005). The "death cult" label was also used by Polly Toynbee
(In
the Name of God, The Guardian, 22 July 2005) in relation to
the London attack of 7/21. Again the same question might be asked of ordinary
Christians with respect to fundamentalist Christians committed to the military
action in Iraq that has resulted in deaths estimated to be between 25,000-100,000
[more].

Christian death cults?

Friedman's argument was, with respect to the Muslim community: "If it
does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it
is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world
can root out that death cult" [more].
Does the same not apply with respect to any Christian "death cult"?

For those who have then to deal with the consequences of this Christian commitment
to their own multiple simultaneous deaths in the near future, the sudden departure
of the enraptured are recognized as likely to be the direct cause of multiple
deaths of others (for example if the pilot of an airplane is "taken up").
Those to be so enraptured are indeed completely indifferent to these deaths.
Just as non-Muslims may have difficulty understanding the Muslim belief with
respect to jihadis, so non-Christians may have great difficulty in distinguishing
the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists from those of the Jonestown People's
Temple who died in a mass "suicide" in 1978 [more]
-- an earlier "death cult" of partly Christian inspiration.

Evangelicals draw their backing from Jewish claims to the "promised
land" from various passages in the Old and New Testaments...A minority
of US evangelicals are Christian Zionists who believe Israel's existence is
a necessary precursor to end-times and the second coming of Christ. For theological
reasons, some prominent US pastors are unyielding towards Palestinians' own
yearning for statehood and have joined settler groups in campaigning against...plans
to withdraw from the Gaza strip. They have also helped to fund Jewish settler
expansion...one of the main obstacles to resolve the conflict between Israel
and Palestinians... evangelicals can also afford more easily to adopt hard-line
views.

The Catholic Church is renowned for the torture-assisted processes of its Inquisition,
possibly followed by burning at the stake. These were framed as essential to
"defending the faith" and "saving the souls" of those who
would otherwise be damned. Given the numbers killed by this process, it might
also be understood as the activities of a "death cult". The Inquisition
was committed to the eradication of heresies -- effectively the process now
advocated for Muslims holding views that give rise to what is defined as "terrorism".
Few would doubt the terror associated with the Inquisition's processes. Some
continue to defend them.

As with other faiths, Christianity has been intimately associated with massacres
and genocide throughout history -- for example the millions killed in the Belgian
Congo at the beginning of the 20th century. Perpetrators in the past century
have often been notable for having received a Christian education, or even of
being of deeply committed Christians, like George Bush and Tony Blair. More
problematic however is the manner in which Christian churches have been complicit
in such slaughter -- or condoned it with only token protest or expressions of
regret. It is readily forgotten that the large numbers of deaths associated
with the process of colonialization, and the "resettlement" of indigenous
peoples, was condoned by Christian churches, whether Protestant or Catholic.
As a primarily Christian country, it is most significant that the leadership
of the USA now finds itself obliged to guarantee itself -- by various deals
-- impunity from conviction by the International Criminal Court for charges
of crimes against humanity.

Religious "slow death" cults

Ironically, in the light of one of the few agendas which they share, it might
even be argued that the Abrahamic
religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) are all "death cults"
-- through their continuing effort to avoid any constraints on population growth,
or effective debate on the matter. In the absence of adequate food and water
supplies, or the capacity or will to deliver them -- and through associated
issues of health and poverty -- this agenda ensures a maximum number of deaths
in the immediate and foreseeable future. The numbers involved far exceed those
resulting from terrorist incidents. More generally, there are many ongoing violent
conflicts around the world sustained by those same religions (cf James A. Haught.
Holy Hatred: Religious Conflicts of the '90s, 1995).

Whilst religions are highly complicit in the deaths resulting from their support
of military action, it might also be asked to what extent the denial by religions
of any right to an "assisted death" -- in the event of a chronically
painful and undignified health condition -- justifies recognition of them as
slow "death cults". The commitment to ensuring the maximum pain of
others in this condition, for the longest period of time, is especially repugnant.
This commitment is especially evident in the insistence on avoiding abortion
of severely handicapped foetuses -- condemning the affected to a life of suffering
and discrimination.

Curiously the Abrahamic religions all have blood rituals as key features of
their pattern of worship -- whether or not blood is actually or symbolically
shed or consumed. In all three religions, blood is an essential symbol of life
and is associated with celebrating different understandings of sacrifice --
again an indicator of a "death cult". Before a bullfight, Spanish
matadors light candles at makeshift altars to solict divine protection and appease
a Catholic audience -- for the slaughter they intend to undertake.

One commentator suggests that "There is a strong sense in which the holy
warrior -- whether crusader, jihadi or zealot -- longs for a literal ecstasis
(death)" [more].
For Michael Ortiz Hill (Mainlining
Apocalypse, 2004):

The Crusader/Jihadi makes real its cosmos by drawing to itself final things:
The afterlife, the end of the world, the full sanctification of the children
of God. This sacred solipsism translated into a religious vernacular the Mutually
Assured Destruction of the Cold War. Without detente.

"Shoddy theology"

Ian Buruma (Homeland
insecurity. Financial Times, 16-17 Juy 2005) develops an argument
with respect to fundamentalist Muslims that might also be seen as of some relevance
to an understanding of fundamentalist Christians in their preoccupation with
rapture and their disinterest in the future of the planet:

The promise of escape, of a new collective identity, of heroic martyrdom,
the ideal of dispensing with all rational thought in the name of a great cause,
the thought of reaching for heaven will continue to attract second- and third-generation
immigrants who feel rejected by a society that consequently fills them with
such hatred that the dream of blowing it up.

In the light of the above, current efforts to accuse Islam alone of "shoddy
theology" -- with respect to its ambiguous attitude towards declaration
of jihad and "terrorist" action -- could be usefully extended
to encompass all Abrahamic religions.

Inculcating extremist values

Suspicions are now attached to Muslim "training camps" and madrasas
-- following CIA funding of them to train terrorists against the Russian occupation
of Afghanistan. Current supicions might, however, be usefully extended to the
widespread Christian promotion of the dubiously-named "crusader camps"
and the foundations which support them [more].
Whilst there is concern about the encouragement of jihad in madrasas,
it might be asked whether any attention has been focused on the function of
"crusader schools", notably grouped in The
Army Crusader Schools League in the UK. There are over 100 such schools
in Australia. In the USA there are numerous "crusader academies".
"Crusader College" was long used as a name for the US Naval Air Station
Miramar, which during the 1960s was highly successful in preparing fleet pilots
for combat cruises on the F-8 Crusader gunfighter [more].

Questions might be usefully asked about the extremist values and doctrines
cultivated in such locations, if only implicitly through the "crusader"
metaphor -- and of how these may even drive some to illegal militant action
against abortion clinics (cf Teresa Whitehurst,
'I'm Ready to Die': Fundamentalist Christianity instills in millions of American
followers a depressing- and dangerous - nihilism, 7 February 2005) or
to aspire to Christianize Muslims in their homelands, possibly with military
backing. Another comparative thread worth exploring is that relating to the
active concept of "Christ militant", notably as adopted by white supremacists
and the extremist Patriot movement in the USA (cf Brian Levin, The
Patriot Movement: past, present, future). It was the armies of "Christ
Militant" that comprised the First Crusade and captured Jerusalem on 15 July
1099. Such themes are especially relevant with the recent switch in terminology
by the Bush regime from "global war on terror" to "struggle against
violent extremism" [more].
Violence does not only take physical forms. As remarked by Johan Galtung, "physical
violence is for amateurs".

Comparing "holy warriors"

Of particular interest in comparing "crusader", "jihadi"
and "zealot" is the protests that many of their protagonists would
make against the violent military connotations exclusively applied to their
own case:

jihad: connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an
inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military
struggle to further the Islamic cause. Although jihad can apply to
warfare, the term is frequently mistranslated to mean "holy war" in English.
Mainstream Muslims consider jihad to be the most misunderstood aspect
of their religion by non-Muslims. A person who engages in any form of jihad
is called a "mujahid", meaning "striver" or "struggler", though this Islamic
term is indeed often used to mean a person who engages in fighting. It is
not limited to fighting or warfare however, a Muslim struggling to memorize
the Quran is a mujahid, for example [more]

crusade: the crusading spirit and the crusading movement affected
every social class and every generation from 1100 to 1500 -- involving virtually
every geographic location accessible to Europeans. Since the 17th century,
the term has carried a connotation in the west of being a "righteous campaign",
usually to "root out evil", or to fight for a just cause. In a broader sense,
"crusade" can be used, always in a rhetorical and metaphorical sense, to identify
as righteous any war that is given a religious justification and asserted
to be holy, however dubious the justification [more].
Ardent activists may also refer to their causes as "crusades," as in the "Crusade
against Adult Illiteracy," or a "Crusade against Littering." [more]
It is in this sense that the "crusading spirit" can be understood
(cf Michael Whitcraft, Rekindling
the Crusading Spirit, 2005)

zealotry: the corresponding action of Jewish extremists tends
not to be explored in the same context even though there is a striking parallel
between the actions of modern Islamic fundamentalists (even against other
Muslims) and the actions of the early Jewish zealots [more].
Their doctrines had a strong focus on the necessity of violent actions against
the enemies of Judaism. Some scholars have argued that Jesus was a zealot
[more]. There is also a striking
parallel in their willingness to commit collective suicide at Masada -- a
defining moment in Jewish history [more].
Traces of the doctrines of the early zealots are evident in modern Jewish
fundamentalism. In its more militant form, it might be argued that the behaviour
of the Irgun in the liberation
of Israel from the British has now been institutionalized in the actions of
Mossad. In the light of that mindset, conspiracy theorists and those antagonistic
to the "Christian-Zionist crusaders" frequently suggest Mossad complicity
in terrorist attacks [more
| more
| more
| more
| more]

In the historical sense, both "crusade" and "jihad" each
tend to be viewed by the other culture as terms for aggression directed toward
it. In a non-historical common or theological use, "crusade" has come to have
a much broader emphatic or religious meaning --substantially removed from 'armed
struggle.' Thus the Western term "crusade" and the Islamic term "jihad" substantially
mirror each other in both the personal and the socio-cultural meaning--such that
translators between English and Arabic, for example, may use them interchangeably.
In recent years, however, there has been some heightened awareness among Westerners
to the historical and political problems with the use of the term "crusade",
and where any casual respect for Muslim culture has relevance, the term has
largely fallen into disuse. [more]

Who benefits from the lack of any objective comparison
between the patterns of indoctrination of the religious "schools"
and "camps" of those of Christian (Evangelical, Catholic), Muslim
or Jewish persuasion -- and their consequences for those of other faiths? What
proportion might be assessed as dangerously extreme, and how? How is the radicalism
of their respective "clerics" to be assessed -- when, in case, they
incite to extreme violence, or condone it?

Within a day of the announcement of the new UK anti-terrorism legislation --
focusing notably on incitement by radical (Islamic) clerics -- the leading US
tele-evangelist Pat Robertson, exemplified extreme Christianity when he recommended,
on the Christian Broadcasting Network, to
his 7 million viewers the assassination of the president of Venezuela:

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has
come to exercise that ability... It's a whole lot easier to have some of the
covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." [moremoremore]

Reverend Robertson, a former US Presidential candidate, is founder of the Christian
Coalition of America -- a prime supporter of George Bush. Neither George Bush
nor the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, condemned such incitement with
any vigour. Robertson subsequently attempted to deny that he called for the assassination
[more]. Incitement of
this extreme kind will need to be handled with the same rigour as that applied
to the "radical clerics" of Islam. Evangelists have claimed that Reverend
Robertson does not represent the views of evangelical Christians [more].
This clearly implies that, those whose views he does represent should be "rooted
out" in the spirit of eliminating "death cults" from the body of
the Christian community. But, most intriguing was the extremely muted media "outcry"
in comparison with what would be the reaction to such a statement by an Islamic
cleric. On 24 August, for example, CNN endeavoured -- most inappropriately --
to reframe the incitement to assassination through humour.

What is the significance of the pressure of evangelical chaplains on cadets
in military academies -- exposed in one instance by a resigning whistleblower?
Reports indicate that the cadet wing at the Air Force Academy is about 90 percent
Christian (about one-third Catholic, one-third mainstream Protestant, and one-third
evangelical), but the evangelicals have a much bigger voice among the chaplains
there, reflecting the pattern in the chaplain corps of the Air Force overall
[more]
[more]

The academy in question is located in Colorado Springs, home to NORAD Headquarters,
Air Force Space Command, multiple Air Force Bases, and numerous other military
installations. One commentator Devlin Buckley (Theocon
Valley: A door in the wall of separation, Theocracy
Alert, 29 April 2005) noted that: "The academy leadership... has
proactively contributed to creating a religious institution out of the Air Force
Academy". Is there no concern at the nature of their mission as Christians
in being primarily responsible for bombing and straffing Iraqi towns -- from
on high? How is this issue related to the pattern of promotion of born-again
Christians within the military charged with operations against Islamic countries?
[more]

Converting the world

Whilst the Muslim focus on establishing a Caliphate of countries of primarily
Muslim faith may indeed be questioned, how does this equate with the active
agenda of "Christianity" to Christianize the whole world? (cf John
Noe, Restoring
the Kingdom-of-God Worldview to the Church and the World, 2004). Has
the "Christian" community, or its leadership, condemned such cultural
aggression? Why not? Who benefits from their failure
to do so? Who is complicit in this failure,

Islam is the only religion whose original sources contradict the principles
of Christianity. Moreover, the Islamic system is the most harmonious religious
system concerning social and political affairs. We need hundreds of centers
to understand Islam and to penetrate it cunningly. Thus, Christianizing Muslims
is the first of all our priorities.”(Christianization : A Plan to
Conquer the Islamic World, Papers of Colorado Conference, Arabic edition.
Malta, 1991).

Whatever the many deficiencies of Islam in the eyes of other faiths, how are
those of that faith to distinguish the Christianization agenda from the actions
of a Christian-led Coalition of the Willing, especially when a Christian pastor
of the same faith can address a much-cited letter to George Bush in the following
terms:

I need to ask you: Do you know what the values and vision of Jesus are? I
ask the question because I am baffled and confused by your behavior. You claim
Christ but act like Caesar. There is blood all over your hands, with the promise
of even more blood to come....You claim you are of the Sustainer of Life,
but you practice the terror of Death. You are spreading the war....Many people,
in the name of God, have taken up the sword. And many have come to ruin. Thinking
themselves capable of naming evil, they have become the very evil they name.
(Rich Lang, Fire
and Brimstone: A letter from a Pastor to the President, 18 April
2002)

Manipulating terror

What indeed is to be said of the images of an afterlife of "fire and brimstone"
deliberately cultivated and used by Christian and other religions down the centuries
to terrorize their adherents into obedience -- "striking fear into their
very souls"? [more
| more]
For those who have had that experience, why should this not be considered a
form of terrorism -- as with the terrifying so-called "Acts of God"?
(cf Is God a
Terrorist: Definitional game-playing by the Coalition of the Willing?
2004). Ironically many schisms in Christianity resulted from rejection of such
interpretations -- although the groups cultivating such views continue to survive
in democratic societies. Also ironically, this schismatic process might be seen
as a precursor of what Muslims are now being called upon to do in rejecting
Islamic extremists.

It might also be asked whether the faith-based leadership of the Christian
Coalition of the Willing is effectively regressing to the original source of
Christian power in the exploitation and manipulation of existential terror --
vamping up public levels of terror associated with terrorist incidents. It is
clear that in terms of power politics leading a terrified nation, in which any
criticism is declared to be traitorous, is much easier than leading one in which
a diversity of critical views can be expressed.

Matching insight into "shoddy theology" has been that with respect
to the shoddiness of foreign policies giving rise to the injustices exploited
by such theology (cf Salma Yaqoob, Our
leaders must speak up, The Guardian, 15 July 2005).

As noted by an editorial in the Financial Times (14 July 2005):

Common to all Islam is a doctrinal concern to build a just society and to
preserve the unity of the Umma, the worldwide community of believers. This
is already a powerful and appealing political; combination even before the
spark of belief is added. Add to it the familiar list of timeless and actual
Muslim grievances, the sense of a religion under assault combined with a sense
of lost glory, and what begins to emerge is a liberation theology.

Stifling debate

The above editorial continues:

It is also important to recognise that the international jihadism franchised
by Osama bin Laden is almost entirely a Sunni Muslim phenomenon... It remains
a self-inflicted wound at the heart of Islam that the Sunni establishments
for all practical purposes closed down philosophical speculation in the 12th
century, believing it to be divisive as well as inimical to their monopoly
of power. This stifling of debate and enquiry, of curiosity and innovation,
is or should be at the heart of debate about Islam and modernity.

Curiously it is the "stifling of debate and enquiry" that is now
a feature of the response to 7/7 -- even within the Parliament of the UK. As
a believer in a particular version of Christianity, Tony Blair (Parliament,
13 July 2005) called for the mobilization of the "moderate and true voice
of Islam" to tackle the "extreme and evil ideology" associated
with 7/7. What would be the "moderate and true voice of Christianity"
in Northern Ireland? He stressed the nature of the threat whose roots lay in
"a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam".
Would it be the Catholics or Protestants who were seen to constitute "a
perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Christianity"
in Northern Ireland -- or both? How does the Christian community deal with abuses
within -- and its tendencies to militant fundamentalism or the terrorizing of
parishioners?

Action against evil

But setting religions against each other in degrees of "death cultishness"
or "theological shoddiness" is not helpful, as the following quotes
imply:

Dietrich Bonhoeffer has : "There is nothing quite so terrible as evil masquerading
as virtue."

Anon: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men
to do nothing."

Blaise Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
do it from religious conviction."

Henry Thoreau: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
one who is striking at the root."

Hannah Arendt: "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never
make up their minds to be good or evil."

With respect to the Bush-Blair rallying cry for action against evil, as an
American sociologist, Wendell Bell (All
About Evil, 28 October 2002) points out:

In all sincerity, we Americans view our own recent aggressions as justifiable,
perfectly understandable, and rational acts designed to destroy evil. But
in our efforts to destroy members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,
we also killed and injured civilians, demolished homes and places of work
and worship, and created still more innocent victims. "Regrettable collateral
damage," we said.

And what of Osama bin Laden, his Al Qaeda followers, and other violence-prone
Islamic fundamentalists? Do they see themselves, as we have defined them,
as evil incarnate? If we would take the time to study and to listen, we would
learn that no, they do not. They see themselves, just as we see ourselves,
as righteous, moral, and sincere as they try to destroy what they regard
as evil in the world. They claim to believe that they are following the bidding
of their God, willing to become martyrs in the struggle against evil. Thus,
their thinking, too, is held hostage by the rhetoric of evil. They are, if
you can think an unthinkable thought, mirror images of us Americans as we
react with violence to destroy evil in the world.